Jump to content

what is system requirements for ARK is Survival Ascended

Recommended Posts

I was mostly just wondering what the actual system requirements were going to be for the actual game itself for launch. I know that it's going to be quite a while until it shows up on Steam. But I was just curious what the actual requirements are. I can run the standard arcs of all evolved. The original one on medium settings, but I was just wondering what the actual? Requirements We're going to be for this one reciprocally. Because I'm running a Ryzen 3600. And 5500 XT 4 gigabytes as well as 16 gigs of ram at 3000 megahertz. As well as a 500 gig SSD as well as a two-terabyte hard drive. I was just specifically wondering myself what the requirements were for the future for the game itself before I actually purchased it, because I don't want to buy the game if I can't run it. Until I can make an upgrade. On my system. 

Edited by Angelsoulking32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Joebl0w13 changed the title to The question what the system requirements for ARK is Survival Ascended
  • Angelsoulking32 changed the title to what is system requirements for ARK is Survival Ascended

No body knows. In theory UE5 does way better with "resources" than UE4. But that depends on how the UE5 is actually implemented. Your best bet is to wait on post release and then see what the forum / reviews and etc. have to say.

Off hand 4gig of graphics is a little under spec for a lot of modern releases - but fair enough - at medium settings almost any game should kinda play. 

Only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the past is anything to go by, your 500gb ssd will be too small for ark. However we don't have anything official so if you go the the average requirements these days you should be ok if you set your expectations right, don't expect ultra and 4k, you are likely looking a mix of settings around medium to get a decent framerate.

Specs should be released before the game is out in early access so you will be able to check if you meet the min requirements anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this just makes me wonder what ASA's version of Low is.

Anyone who remembers the soulless golf balls that were the dinosaurs eyes back when it used to look like total playdough will know what I'm talking about.

I've played Ark on a 630 Gt Nvidia card as well as everything else for about half a decade or more. On the No Sky launch option of course. With 16 GB of Ram it could run subzero graphics (what I like to call lowest turn every light switch off as possible) at around an average of 15-20 fps. Drops would occurr in places with lots of trees visible or the bulk of my base, which also had very little structures to compensate and only had a single tall wall layer to keep out dinos and a main mini castle for landing fliers and all stations. This pc had to play Subnautica on lowest distance for rendering and graphics so that resources would only appear once you got about 10-15 feet from them. It handled anything 2d well and without issue unless there was a reason to lag like significant particle accumulation or something but otherwise it was only the newer and 3d games that taxed it. I played Valheim on it at 10 average fps with frequent dips, yes you can play on that. Lag is different, lag is a connection issue where it slingshot you and tries to catch up to the actual state of the games elements, low fps in my case is just the system having trouble from processing it all, during this It does not do things you cannot see happen or jump forward after 10 attacks the system finally registered on your end while you had no way to respond. It's like pausing and playing a video, nothing goes on that you do not see.

If my old Asus pc could handle running that for years then I would say that even if ASA and/or it's engine have higher system requirements, it's not by much. It would be incredibly stupid to alienate a chunk of their player base or potential players just from performance issues, then again this is Ark and this game has a history of its own.

I will tell you this because the way I described playing Ark above was actually after I had gotten the new memory installed. Initially I played the game for about 50 hours without it. The Singleplayer on the Island took so long to load I used to do homework while waiting for it to load, which took about 30 minutes to an hour. Afterwards I had a usual fps of 5. The game would constantly dip under that, and sometimes it would freeze for a full minute or several as it processed the game before it finally unfroze or it crashed or went back to to menu screen where I had to load the map again. This sounds like the end of the world level impossible to play but I have actually been laying on older and leggy computers for years, I'm used to 10-20 fps and usual drops. It's what comes with old games and systems. My PC however was a champion that held up through it all and managed to still work through every game I put it through. 

During the time I played ark like this. I managed to tame my first dinosaur, a Dilo. Build a Thatch hut. Try to tame a Turtle, try to use it to kill a Gignatopithecus that had wnadered onto the beach nearby, saw it die and manaaged to finish off th4 monkey. Barely managed to take down a horde of Compies. Wandered over to the west northeastern tip of the beach opposite to the one with the mountain (I was spawned on the shore of the mouth of the river that enters into the mainland from Carno Islands location.) And managed to tame a Raptor, a Carno, and a Megaloceros (It was the Christmas event during this time, so not only was it cold it had deer everywhere). It was only after this point that I finally managed to get some memory installed to help me get an actual decent and truly playable fps.

So...it may be newer Gen technology...but hopefully it may not be as bad as you think. Ark has had lower end options for quite some time now, even if it is poorly optimized, it's actually improved much more than you and others may realize. As someone who started playing when the Mosasaur came out, and remembers that the northeastern area that is a flat low to sea level plains used to be a high Altitude area that had a sheer cliff that could drop you off into the ocean into a pack of sharks that could eat you before you managed to find a rock or swim back to shore.

This however is the optimistic outcome and it could very well be a total dumpster tier extinction event.

Keep in mind that Ark's size is inflated by the maps, so what you have will greatly affect the needed space. If you don't need the Center, or never cared that much for Extinction, or skip over Scorched Earth for Ragnarok, think Lost Island is overrated, or only play one or 2 maps then you'll be less affected by the storage space issue.

I'm not being unrealistic here as I am also curious as to how the newer version of Ark runs, as ive recently gotten a newer and better equipped pc with the power supply and graphics card to finally run most games at a healthier fps, and expect it to possibly be in Early Access...hopefully not. But I'd rather they took their time with this. This is the legacy of their main game after all.

Why did I tell you all this? Maybe to make some people realize they have way better odds of getting a better and more smoothly optimized and organized Ark, hopefully, than what we had to deal with for years. It could dethrone ASE itself as the buggiest king of all insects itself. Ark: Bugs Ascended. Or it could be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...